guardvibe

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the analytical scope (four specific health checks) but omits operational details like network requirements, rate limits, error handling for non-existent packages, or whether results are cached.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two well-structured sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality with specific analytical categories; the second provides clear usage timing. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description reasonably implies output content via the four listed analysis dimensions. However, it lacks explicit return value structure, severity scoring explanation, or error condition documentation expected for a security evaluation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds context that packages are 'new dependencies,' which semantically frames the 'packages' parameter, but does not elaborate on the 'format' parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('npm packages'), and enumerates four distinct analysis dimensions (typosquat risk, maintenance status, adoption metrics, deprecation). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'check_dependencies' by specifying this is for evaluating packages 'before adding new dependencies' rather than auditing existing project dependencies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('before adding new dependencies') and the goal ('catch suspicious or risky packages'). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named sibling alternatives, but the temporal context clearly positions it as a pre-installation gate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.